However, this doesn’t invalidate my point. In fact one could argue this is a smart move to cut the middle man and allow Apple to sell data directly. They may not do it, but now they have this advantage should they choose to.
But conspiracies aside, there’s actually one paragraph in this article you linked here that illustrates my point nicely:
“Right now opt-in rates to share data with apps when they’re not in use are often below 50%, said Benoit Grouchko, who runs the ad tech business Teemo that creates software for apps to collect location data. Three years ago those opt-in rates were closer to 100%, he said. Higher opt-in rates prevailed when people weren’t aware that they even had a choice. Once installed on a phone, many apps would automatically start sharing a person’s location data.”
You see, the reason I mentioned “they are the same” is because even if Google didn’t provide full-encryption in their phones: it wouldn’t matter, because people don’t know about it and won’t use it anyway. Same issue as with Whatsapp as per my previous post, and precisely one of the main criticisms towards Telegram (which doesn’t enable E2E by default).
Ah, I misunderstood this statement then, from the official Android documentation. I thought full-disk encryption would be replaced entirely, and that file-based would apply individual files only. It did seem very weird but now it makes sense, thank you.
Note: Devices running Android 7.0–9 support full-disk encryption. New devices running Android 10 and higher must use file-based encryption.
Do you happen to know if Sony has the stuff up on their page as soon as a new model is released?
And unfortunately the links to the open source archive and software binaries just give a network violation on my firefox.
Without deeper knowledge it looks “just” like developer information, not flashable images. But as I said, some links I can’t check because they give errors at the moment for me.
This discussion about Apple privacy is interesting but is going a bit off topic.
If I can summarize and add my opinion to what’s going here:
Some people are disappointed because they want a phone respecting their privacy and the Fairphone 3 doesn’t allow that yet, as no version of Android without Google services, which track the user, is provided.
The disappointment is especially high because the Fairphone 2 was provided with Fairphone Open OS, a version without the Google services. So, it puts the FP3 as a worse option than the FP2 right now (end of Januray, 2020),
Even if it was not available on day 1 on the FP2, Fairphone Open OS has been released a few months later. We currently have no indication, roadmap or any information from Fairphone about a release of FOOS for the FP3 (please correct me if that’s wrong), leading to think that this could not happen
It looks like Fairphone delegated (subtrade? sorry I’m not a native english speaker) a lot of work for the FP3. That’s maybe the reason why they are late. Or maybe it’s even the reason they won’t provide it, who knows?
The shame is even bigger because thanks to the providing of FOOS for the FP2, other OSes have been made available by privacy friendly communities such as /e/, Ubuntu Touch or Sailfish OS. To be able to run those OSes is a very important selling point for many power-users out there. If the Fairphone 3 never allows that, that phone would definitely be a regression compared to the FP2
So please Fairphone, provide a boot image, or at least give information about what you plan to do and an estimate date!
Doesn’t that mean: nothing to expect from Fairphone!?
The step-by-step guide to unlock the bootloader is already there - not from the company but from the community. The rest of the answer just expresses their expectation that the community-projects somehow will succeed to get their OSes running on the FP3. If I understand the development threads correctly this involves a lot of reverse engineering - because of lack of information from the vendor and/or manufacturer. This FAQ answer does not seem to justify any hope that there is something to come from Fairphone.
True. But I think this is a (related but) different topic. I understand that developing FP OOS requires some effort and takes time. . (Edit: FP OOS is not mentioned in the FAQ answer.) But I struggle to understand why Fairphone can’t support the communities by providing the needed information Insofar I agree with that comment above:
Well, I agree they could have blunted that attack vector towards themselves somewhat with some quicker effort.
And I would agree it would be nice to know what’s keeping them busy right now preventing them from doing so.
But it’s not that they can’t support that, they just didn’t yet …
The best of both worlds … we’re on our way to a custom ROM without much Google … Yay! … but it isn’t entirely ready suitable for the mass yet, so people can still complain about the unjustifiably dire situation in technicolor … Yay! .